Actually I'm not really a fan of any of this. Seems like pointless and unnecessary changes.

from the above link

Quote:

Full playing strength will be 4-on-4 until the first whistle following three minutes of play (4:00 remaining), at which time full strength will be reduced to 3-on-3 for the duration of the overtime period.

I don't get the point of any of these either. If you just want to eliminate shootouts then bring back ties or go 4 on 4 for 10 minutes.

The helmet rule seems like it can be more detrimental then good. Say if a defender is in the corner battling for a puck on the pk and loses his helmet, then that means he has to skate all the way to his bench or take time to strap on his helmet making the opposing team have an even better chance to score. I can't recall a player losing his helmet during the course of play and getting injured because of it.

The fighting rule is dumb too. Syracuse was 2nd in fighting majors last year with 97 and only had four times when a player dropped the gloves twice in one game. If limiting fighting was their goal I don't really think it'll have much of an impact.

I actually like going 3 on 3 as I hate ties and I hate shootouts, but the whistle system seems a bit clunky. Suppose its the best possible remedy though

What is the difference between this and a shootout? It's just a different type of gimmick. Honestly these rules are so out of control. Why not eliminate checking and skates and replace the puck with a ball?

Here is what I don't see with these ridiculous rule changes. Any evidence as to why they are a good idea. How many people are hurt after their helmet is knocked off? When fighting multiple times in a game, how has a person been hurt worse because of it? I'd love to have that crazy thing called "evidence" or "scientific fact" before making big changes that could significantly impact play.

Use the helmet strap properly and it shouldn't be an issue. No doubt this is in direct relation to the NFL concussion suits.

I hope not. The NFL did not get into bigtime legal trouble because of the concusions themselves. They got into trouble because they were involved in a massive cover up to keep their employees from understanding the risks. They lied and destroyed the reputation of anyone who tried to show the scientific evidence.

Sure, they are trying to make the league safer (all should be). But only idiots would think that random rules like these without scientific evidence as to why these are needed would prevent them from a lawsuit. For example, if people are never injured after losing their helmets, but are from hits from behind that are still going unpunished, they will never win their case by saying "But, we made sure you had your helmet on at all times. See, we tried."

The AHL will be testing some rule changes for 2014-2015 and there is a possibility the NHL will follow suit in 2015-2016.

Overtime would be extended to 7 minutes with a 3 on 3.

And finally the hockey gods have heard and heeded my insistent and reasoned plea. First this, then the gimmick is eliminated altogether as all OT is changed to 3-on-3, et voilą! We get our sport back. The death of the shootout is nigh!

Quote:

If a player loses his helmet they must leave the ice immediately.

Stupid rule borrowed from international hockey. If they could, they'd gentrify and wimpify this sport down to the level of softball.

Quote:

If you are involved in 2 fights you will receive a game misconduct.

Meh. Hardly ever happens, so it's easy to live with. Compromise between now and Yzerman's preferred game misconduct for one fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek28

I don't get the point of any of these either. If you just want to eliminate shootouts then bring back ties or go 4 on 4 for 10 minutes.

Silly. Bring back ties?! The point is that with 3-on-3 enough open ice will be there for the teams to decide games, so there's no need for ties, which most fans find unsatisfying and frustrating. Games will instead be decided in an unexpected and exciting way, instead of the stupid predictable circus gimmick we nearly all detest. Four-on-four for ten minutes still leaves you with shootouts, just later and with more tired participants. Again very unsatisfying IMHO

Quote:

I can't recall a player losing his helmet during the course of play and getting injured because of it.

True. I also don't like that all anyone has to do to get pesky Ondrej Palat or Steven Stamkos off the ice is just accidentally on purpose bump his helmet off. Alex had the logical response of just tightening your chin strap. Personally I don't want to wear my chin strap so friggin' tight that if someone DOES yank my helmet it either sprains my cervical spine or the damn thing starts choking my ass to death. I mean, even ignoring the microscopic odds of injury during the tiny slice of ice time the helmet is off...for how many seconds of an entire NHL season and playoffs is there even any player skating helmetless? I'd be floored if the answer totaled more than 60 seconds of playing time. We're changing a rule to cover less than a minute of action in a whole season of over 1,200 games?

I believe the expression is: "Goofy."

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz

I actually like going 3 on 3 as I hate ties and I hate shootouts, but the whistle system seems a bit clunky. Suppose its the best possible remedy though

Right on RS, the only other options would be either doing 3-on-3 the entire seven minutes () or blowing the whistle at 3:00 JUST to take off the two players, which would be even more clunky IMO--and maybe counterproductive--what if somebody had a 2-on-1 or breakaway at that instant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

What is the difference between this and a shootout? It's just a different type of gimmick. Here is what I don't see with these ridiculous rule changes. Any evidence as to why they are a good idea.

1. Shootouts are not and never have been part of an actual hockey game, while 3-on-3 has been a legit hockey config for over half a century, whenever penalties work out just so. Seen it several times, it's fun.
2. During shootouts, the concourses, restrooms and stairwells quickly fill with fans uninterested in random outcomes ducking out to "beat traffic". During sudden-victory OT people will piss their pants rather than leave their seat and miss the riveting excitement. That's a pretty hairy difference IMO
3. 3-on-3 (hey, that's three 3's in a row--must be an omen ) allows the TEAMS, who just fought a bloody, sweaty battle for an hour, to continue being the ones to decide the game's outcome; shootout removes the warriors from the ice, as if to say "OK slugs, nice try, but now we're just gonna flip a coin and get this stupid BS game over and done with," and substitutes a sideshow exhibition of one forward vs. a goaltender--which is just for penalty shots. Speaking of which...
4. Preservation of the penalty shot as the special event it rightly is. How excited can the typical fan be about actual penalty shots, now, really? They look exactly like just another fraction of just another shootout. The gimmick is the hockey equivalent of porn. Somewhat exciting at first, then...meh. Shootouts quickly and insidiously numb the spectator into a bored state of predictability, resulting in a diminished capacity to get the euphoric adrenaline rush that comes with a bona fide penalty shot. For people who have never watched even one entire NHL shootout, the PS remains the single most exciting play in all of sport, period, bar none. I still can't watch one sitting down.

The evidence requested is on display every year. In Traverse City they play 3-on-3 running time games and they are plenty exciting, with lots of scoring. If they did 3-on-3 from the outset of OT they would only in the rarest of cases ever reach 5:00. Not to worry, guys are getting plenty of rest on the bench so the quality of play won't suffer--on the contrary, fresher players means more creativity. The game may be decided on a breakaway, odd-man rush, drive from the point, deflection, rebound...the excitement derives from the unpredictability. There ain't...none...of that...in...an idiotic shooutout.

World Cup has demonstrated the need for shootouts in soccer--those jokers could legitimately play at 0-0 for a week. In hockey, teams will (eventually) decide the winner of tied games in sudden-victory OT. And never having even come close to allowing myself to get used to the amateur-hour gimmick, I couldn't be happier